GOP moans about losing chance to take control of Senate with Castle defeat

posted at 8:48 am on September 15, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

Last week, when trying to keep irrational exuberance in check about the likelihood of taking control of the House, Republicans warned that they might fall short of winning 39 seats in a 435-seat election. Suddenly, in the wake of the rejection of Mike Castle by Delaware Republicans, party officials now want to say that Christine O’Donnell has ruined their chances of netting nine seats in a 35-seat election. Politico’s Jonathan Martin reports on the supposed sad wreck of the grand design:

Christine O’Donnell’s surprise victory in the Delaware Senate GOP primary Tuesday left Republicans in conflict, senior party officials openly fretting that the Senate is now out of reach and Democrats overjoyed that the opposition has handed them a late and desperately needed chance to reframe the national argument about the 2010 elections.

Aside from the political implications of the upset, the outcome prompted a round of deep Republican soul-searching about what it said about their party when a political pillar in Delaware like Rep. Mike Castle, a respected lawmaker who was considered a shoo-in for the Senate seat, could not even come within six points of defeating the controversial and still largely unknown O’Donnell. …

In the wake of Tuesday’s results, a state that would have almost certainly been a pick-up for the GOP is now likely to stay with the Democrats, making it more difficult for Republicans to win the 10 seats necessary to take back control of the Senate.

“We were looking at 8 to 9 seats in the Senate, we are now looking at 7 to 8 in my opinion,” said a visibly-unhappy Karl Rove on Fox News after the race was called for O’Donnell Tuesday night. “This is not a race we’re going to be able to win.” …

“This makes the road much steeper for Republicans to win back the Senate because this was a seat they had counted on,” said former Rep. Tom Davis (R-Va.), a former House campaign committee chairman.

Oh, please. Politics relies in part on setting expectations. That’s what Republicans tried doing last week when tamping down predictions of a wave of 60, 70, or even more House seats switching. Now suddenly they’re distraught over the prospects of picking up nine seats in the Senate — when three months ago, a pickup of five or six seats would have been welcomed as a major gain and a way to ensure a Republican presence large enough to force Democrats to come to the table.

My advice to the GOP would be to quit whining about losing a long-shot bid to win control of the Senate and focus on actually winning the races. In fact, the odds of winning control of the upper chamber didn’t actually decline all that much, because they were small to begin with. Just a few days ago, John Cornyn told a reporter that Democrats would keep control of the Senate through 2012, when Democrats have to defend a lot more seats than the GOP.

The better question on which to focus is in Martin’s second paragraph. What does Mike Castle’s crash and burn among Delaware Republicans say about their party organization? After all, we have heard oodles of commentary about how Delaware Republicans are moderates who might get energized by the Tea Party but supposedly aren’t looking for conservative candidates. Instead, they convinced Castle to leave a relatively safe House seat instead of looking for someone who hadn’t backed a government takeover of the energy sector in cap-and-trade (in a coal-dependent region!) and co-sponsored the DISCLOSE Act. Perhaps had the GOP establishment listened a little more carefully to Delaware Republicans, who turned out relatively heavily in this election, they wouldn’t find themselves crying in their lattes this morning.

They stuck with a liberal, establishment candidate in a cycle where liberals and establishment figures are uniquely unpopular. Had the Republican leadership been in touch with Delaware Republican voters, they might have found a more suitable candidate for the popular mood, and would not have had to deal with Christine O’Donnell and her outsider bid. They have no one to blame but themselves.

Instead of pouting, Republican leaders in Delaware and around the country need to unite around the nominee, who was chosen by the Republicans in Delaware. Had Castle won the nomination, they would have demanded unity themselves, and rightly so. If they want to continue to issue snarky, anonymous asides and in essence take their ball and go home, don’t expect the electorate to follow them into battle in the future. Rarely have I seen such childishness from the supposed leaders of a political establishment, who set the very rules and customs they now want to ignore because they just got embarrassed on a national stage.

Mike Castle, if he is a man of loyalty to the party he wished to represent should hold fundraisers for O’Donnell beginning next week. Lisa Murkowski should follow suit in Alaska for Joel Miller. And Sue Bowden should be doing the same for Sharron Angle in Nevada.

In other words if “establishment” candidates are willing to give anything more than lip service to the party they wished to represent, then they should be willing to roll up their sleeves and do the hard work of campaigning for someone they disagree with on issues. And they should do so remembering they are in it for the greater good. …

We were told that in the end having a majority with an (R) after their name was the best thing of all. Well, I see no reason why that statement can’t hold true when a genuine Republican conservative wins a primary.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Comments

The NRSC has apparently had a change of heart of sorts and heeded Governor Palin’s call for unity. NRSC head, John Cornyn, has released a statement which, in part, reads:

“Let there be no mistake: The National Republican Senatorial Committee – and I personally as the committee’s chairman – strongly stand by all of our Republican nominees, including Christine O’Donnell in Delaware.

“I reached out to Christine this morning, and as I have conveyed to all of our nominees, I offered her my personal congratulations and let her know that she has our support. This support includes a check for $42,000 – the maximum allowable donation that we have provided to all of our nominees – which the NRSC will send to her campaign today.

I hope AllahPundit reads your posts Ed. This is what I’m saying. The Committee & establishment Republicans want us to stand behind their candidates when they get elected. They need to do the same when their candidate of choice is defeated. Stop speaking out of both sides of your mouth. It doesn’t make me want to give you any of my money (it’s safer to provide it directly to each candidate across the country and with the internet, oh so easy to do so. I also think we can cut a bunch of the Strip Club overhead occurring at HQs. Your administrative costs are too high for my blood.) or trust a thing you have to say and any candidates you try to sell me on.

Jarodea: I clearly don’t. ;) Do you think that conservatives shouldn’t respond to attacks that go against long-held conservative political operating procedure?

Also, if Rove beleives there are exceptions, does he believe he should be the arbiter of them?

Do you think Rove would have sat quietly by while OD supporters didn’t support Castle if he won? I certainly don’t.

Who decides what are the exceptions? ‘I don’t like the candidate’ can’t be a criterion.

Vyce: No, I simply would like the Republican party to not destroy its conservative credentials when it returns to power. As I recall, the last time it had a majority, it did. Do you think that, especially given the weak Republican response to OD’s win, that they have learned their lesson?

If the “true cons” can’t be made to see the folly of their gleeful embrace of permanent minority status for the sake of what they THINK is principle (the “better 30 Rubios….” attitude), conservatism might as well become an anachronism, because more winnable elections will be lost, and there won’t be enough GOP votes to stop the Democrats or reverse the damage they’ve done and will continue to do.
Vyce on September 15, 2010 at 11:12 AM

OMG–now we are going to be a “permanent minority” if we don’t all be good little soldiers and vote for a RINO that doesn’t represent our views. You really don’t get it. How are we ever going to get our elected officials to listen to us other than voting them out? Last time I checked, that was the purpose of our election process. I will vote for a RINO if he supports what I support. If he/she votes with the dems sometimes–big deal. It’s the important votes that count–like CRAP and TRADE..

Not saying that this is what the GOP is doing this time, but they have held their cards in the past, while secretly doing things behind the scenes, though this time they lost a sure winner, and would now need to support the underdog.

For weeks, NRSC Chairman John Cornyn (Texas) had urged GOP leaders, both in Washington and nationally, to stay quiet about the race. “Nationalizing” the Brown-Coakley battle as a battle between the two parties would have backfired on Brown, Cornyn believed. The focus had to stay on the Brown-Coakley matchup. “Staying below the radar” was paramount to their plans, the Texas Republican said.

“I had a conversation with Michael Steele and asked him to match our efforts in Massachusetts, and he fully agreed,” Cornyn told POLITICO in an interview prior to Tuesday’s election.

Cornyn added: “The Brown team really understood that the power of his campaign was that it was an indigenous effort. Any hint of outsiders coming in and trying to influence the thing would have been counter-productive.”

Get over yourself. You’re not that important.
alwaysfiredup on September 15, 2010 at 11:34 AM

And yet, I’m being told that for the good of the party / movement, I need to unify to get O’Donnell elected. Nwhen yesterday I was told the party would be better off without my type.

You know, the sort who supports conservative candidates across the country, just not the one in Delaware.

Are you really playing the victim here? Are you expecting anyone to agree that the Castle people weren’t as harsh as you accuse the O’Donnell side of being? And you honestly expect an apology?
katiejane on September 15, 2010 at 11:37 AM

Nah, I’m not playing the victim. I certainly don’t see myself as one.

I’m just emphasizing the point that the “true cons” don’t get to act like asses one day, and the next, play the “shut up, we won” card and demand full support for O’Donnell. Doesn’t work that way. You wouldn’t appreciate it from Castle supporters, had he won. So some apologizing from certain individuals would go a ways to making me believe they were sincere about unity, and not just because it’s convenient for them (to get O’Donnell elected).

Vyce: While I cannot say that you said this, people on the Castle side certainly were playing the ‘shut up, we will win (the primary)’ card before the election. As long as you believe neither side should be asking for lockstep do-what-we-say-when-we-say-it support, I think this is fair.

Cornyn embraces O’Donnell
In a clear sign of the grassroots pressure on Republican leaders, National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman John Cornyn just put out a statement embracing Christine O’Donnell — a dramatic contrast with his group’s curt response last night — and writing her a big check.

It’s a remarkable reversal, and a vivid illustration that the base is in charge and has the leadership running scared

I clearly don’t. ;) Do you think that conservatives shouldn’t respond to attacks that go against long-held conservative political operating procedure?

Also, if Rove beleives there are exceptions, does he believe he should be the arbiter of them?

Do you think Rove would have sat quietly by while OD supporters didn’t support Castle if he won? I certainly don’t.

Who decides what are the exceptions? ‘I don’t like the candidate’ can’t be a criterion.

Scott H on September 15, 2010 at 11:54 AM

I do think someone who wants to run for political office (especially the Senate which is basically the 2nd or 3rd most important elected office) should at the very least be capable in the swell of goodwill after an upset win to have some decency in responding to a pundit on TV who can’t hide his disdain at your win.

Well it’s up for everyone to decide when there are exceptions. Unseen mentioned his, I’ve mentioned mine and so has Rove. Though I’d note that Rove and I seem to have a much less expansive list of exceptions than unseen’s.

Why they are exceptions is also up to each individual. I stated mine earlier in the thread, I will not support candidates I believe don’t meet basic competency and stability levels to be an office holder.

As I noted before I know the Democrats don’t meet these standards but that’s their problem not mine.

(I do agree that an elected official shouldn’t react to all attacks. Obama reacts too much; W didn’t react enough.)

If everyone gets to decide when there are exceptions… it’s not really a useful guideline, is it?

‘Don’t talk crap about a fellow Republican… unless you think you should’ isn’t a policy or a guideline. It’s a wishy-washy statement of nothing.

I can understand if you believe the issues surrounding OD don’t make her a good candidate. It’s good to hear that your lack of support doesn’t stem from her (un)electability so much as fears of what she’ll do in office.

And yes, I dont think either of us think Dem hypocrisy worthy of emulation.

Back in the real world, what we do know is O’Donnell basically has no chance (short of a Coons implosion which would see her win either way). What we also know is there are upwards of 12 GOP Senate candidates, most quite cood ideologically, with better chances of winning where support will go a lot further.

At any rate, the money bomb is going great I keep hearing, let the tea party carry her and reap all the glory.

RZ: Oh, I agree that uniting after a primary is what we’re supposed to do. However, the first step in showing logical contradictions is destroying the straw man. You can do it either by pointing out the dissimilarity between it and the actual argument (your approach), or by showing that the straw man is indistinguishable from either position (my approach).

Another great achievment by the Teaba*gers.
Dave Rywall on September 15, 2010 at 11:50 AM

First thing I do every morning is check the opinions of people who use the term “teabagger” when they know damn well it was always meant to be a slur. These are the folks I look to for insightful political commentary.

First thing I do every morning is check the opinions of people who use the term “teabagger” when they know damn well it was always meant to be a slur. These are the folks I look to for insightful political commentary.

Bishop on September 15, 2010 at 12:17 PM

I’ll never understand people who think that the first step in convincing people to change their views…

…is to lavishly and enthusiastically insult the person.

I mean, whenever anyone insults me the first thing I think is “wow, I better start listening to this person.”

Vyce: While I cannot say that you said this, people on the Castle side certainly were playing the ‘shut up, we will win (the primary)’ card before the election. As long as you believe neither side should be asking for lockstep do-what-we-say-when-we-say-it support, I think this is fair.
Scott H on September 15, 2010 at 12:02 PM

I do think someone who wants to run for political office (especially the Senate which is basically the 2nd or 3rd most important elected office) should at the very least be capable in the swell of goodwill after an upset win to have some decency in responding to a pundit on TV who can’t hide his disdain at your win.
jarodea on September 15, 2010 at 12:07 PM

She did respond, and in an appropriate way…she responded like a man! Too bad that most men can’t handle that.

I agreed with you that tactically supporting Castle over O’donnell was likely the better choice.

However, I’m not really sure why you are still hanging on to this argument and so angry now. It is over, our argument lost. That does not mean we won’t have the same argument in the future (i.e., tactical victories vs. victories for principal), but I don’t think now is the time to have them. It doesn’t help us at all to keep at it at this point. She is the nominee – you disagree with that and don’t think she’ll win the general (I also have my doubts) – but it does us no good to tear each other apart at this point. The rule should be that after the primary is done, everyone gets together and supports the candidate. I would expect that if Castle had won, I think it is fair to expect it now that O’Donnell won.

there will be plenty of time to have the debate about whether it is tactically better to nominate a purist over a RINO in a state like DE after the general election. Right now it serves no purpose to continue the fight.

Monkeytoe on September 15, 2010 at 10:43 AM

Tactically, it DOESN’T make sense to nominate a purist over a RINO in a state like Delaware.

What’s more, between 2004 and 2008, 38,168 new voters registered as Democrats, while only 340 new voters registered as Republicans in Delaware–the state is trending leftward.

O’Donnell won the Republican primary with less than 30,000 votes, meaning that less than 60,000 Republicans, or less than 1/3 of registered Republicans, voted in the primary.

If we assume that 50%, or 300,000 voters turn out for the general election, O’Donnell will need at least 150,000 votes to win. She will therefore need at least 120,000 votes she didn’t get in the primary, meaning either a HUGE turnout among Republicans, or a large majority of Independent voters. It will be an uphill battle in any event, so Republicans need to unite around O’Donnell, and work hard to persuade Independents to vote for her.

There is some merit to the argument that Republican and Tea Party resources would be better spent trying to win Senate races elsewhere–for example, Wisconsin, where Ron Johnson easily won the GOP primary with 85% of the vote (a half million votes!), and is about even with Russ Feingold in the polls. Or Nevada, where Sharron Angle is deadlocked with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, in a state with a single media market (Las Vegas). Or Washington state, where Dino Rossi is about even in the polls with Patty Murray, despite the state’s normally-blue tilt.

Republicans will probably pick up Democrat-held Senate seats in ND, AR, IN, and PA, and have a better-than-even chance of picking up CO and IL. This would bring them to 47 Senate seats, and Carly Fiorina is only slightly behind Barbara Boxer in California, although CA is a very expensive state to run a campaign, so it’s very helpful that Fiorina is financing her own campaign.

Three more states could tilt the Senate–are we better off concentrating on WI, WA, and NV, where the polls are just about tied, or fighting an uphill battle in Delaware?

Rove is in the business of winning elections. Him, you can’t really criticize until he’s proven wrong. Hasn’t been shown yet that he’s wrong. Instead of throwing rocks at Rove, go out and make sure that he will be wrong.

RBMN on September 15, 2010 at 9:01 AM

And this is exactly what is wrong with the GOP!

Moderate RINOs are in step with the Progressive Dems in wanting to seize power and hold it for themselves. They are always looking at the next election on as a we win/lose issue. They try to sell themselves as conservatives, yet once elected follow the same model of larger government, less freedom and more taxes/entitlements.

Conservatives are seeking nothing less than rolling back a hundred years of progressive anti-freedom repression by focusing on 1) smaller government, 2) lower taxes and 3) adherence to the Constitution.

Ultimately, this is not about the DE primary. It is about sending a message to the GOP leadership that they must put conservative views first, or they will be relegated to the Whig party!

The GOP needs the conservative base; we don’t need them. Cornyn got the message. Let’s see if Rove eventually gets it…

But it isn’t a “card” – it’s simply and fundamentally what we do after primaries.
The winner gets to celebrate a bit, the loser is given a little time to lick their wounds…
…and then we unite in the face of a greater enemy.
There is really no comparison between this and what Obama did.
Religious_Zealot on September 15, 2010 at 12:08 PM

Here’s the problem we’ve got.

You made us – the non-O’Donnell supporters – THE enemy. A greater enemy than the Democrats. All that gleeful talk of purging us.

So how do WE come back from that? Or even should we. I mean, if some of you really do think us supposed RINO-types are unnecessary, it might be a useful experiment to see how well your candidate does without our support or money. Not supporting Coons. Just sitting this one out.

And why shouldn’t Republicans ask for (even DEMAND) party unity in the face of a marxist opponent?
And since when isn’t party unity SUPPOSED to occur after a primary?

I already covered this, but this was no ordinary primary.

Many on your side – including big name (well….bigger name than “Hot Air commenter”) media types like Mark Levin burned as many bridges as possible and generally portrayed non-Christine-ophiles as the scum of the earth, lower than, well, Marxist Democrats. Presented us as the REAL enemy.

After that, it’s hubris to turn around and demand party unity from the people you just spent considerable effort vilifying. Well, you can do it, but don’t act surprised if you get people like me telling you, “Yeah, no, you’re on your own. Good luck, bro.”

(I do agree that an elected official shouldn’t react to all attacks. Obama reacts too much; W didn’t react enough.)

Depends on the smear, the source, and the timing. In this case it wasn’t a serious smear, was from a pundit in the media, and came immediately after her upset win. I’d hope she would have done better. As it is it’s just another, very minor, addition to why I can’t support her.

‘Don’t talk crap about a fellow Republican… unless you think you should’ isn’t a policy or a guideline. It’s a wishy-washy statement of nothing.

I never said it was anything but. Though I do think it needs to be restricted to extreme cases and not simply “I don’t like the candidate”. Most cases I can think of apply to Democrats though, like Torecelli or Gianoulious so it doesn’t matter. I can’t think of the last time I used it, I even voted for McCain.

I can understand if you believe the issues surrounding OD don’t make her a good candidate. It’s good to hear that your lack of support doesn’t stem from her (un)electability so much as fears of what she’ll do in office.

Good to know you can’t see my black putrid RINO copulating eyeore heart through the intertubes. Though others around here seem to be really good at it, I’m sure they’d teach you if you wanted to learn how.

And yes, I dont think either of us think Dem hypocrisy worthy of emulation.

Scott H on September 15, 2010 at 12:12 PM

Then we are in agreement on that. I just threw it in because I hear “but the Democrats do or get away with X” too often.

I agree with most of your comment, and my disagreement is minor and not worth bringing up, but I do think you should use more recent voter registration numbers or not put much emphasis on 2008′s. Just about every state in the union was trending leftward from 2006 to 2008.

There have been several news stories here in Ohio about how the Democrats made major gains in party registration before 2008 and have since been losing it to Republicans. I don’t think Delaware is a state where that would happen as rapidly as Ohio but it should still be happening.

Cut the GOP some slack. Give them some time to grieve. O’Donnell just ruined what was a sure pick-up. As you can see, they have come around, even though it truly will be a waste of money. Whether or not this seat could have been the one to put them over the top to gain the majority is besides the point. This was a seat the GOP WAS going to win.

But notice how the GOP reacts to “Tea Party” candidates like Rubio vs. “Tea Party” candidates like Angle. Rubio is a strong conservative, but he is electable. He inspires voters and shows that he understands policy. To my knowledge, the GOP had no issues throwing their support behind Rubio. Angle, on the other hand, is a terrible candidate. She is inept and has proven that she is unprepared for the general election. The only thing that is keeping her in the race is Reid’s unpopularity and the state of the economy in Nevada. A Marco Rubio in Nevada would have advanced Reid’s retirement by several months. He wouldn’t have been man enough to take the beating in Nov. But, the Tea Party gave him a gift by electing electing Angle as the GOP candidate.

Another Tea Party favorite is Pat Toomey. He is a strong conservative, and more importantly, electable in a state that both Kerry and Obama won. He can articulate his positions in a way that connects with most Pennsylvanians, including the critical independents.

O’Donnell seems to be a candidate of the Angle mold, not Rubio/Toomey.

You made us – the non-O’Donnell supporters – THE enemy. A greater enemy than the Democrats. All that gleeful talk of purging us.

1) Stop over generalizing. Not every O’Donnell supporter talked about “purging.”

2) You can only fully become “the enemy” when you fully embrace and live out that moniker. There are many examples on this thread of Castle supporters who are now throwing their support behind O’Donnell. These people have refused to be labeled as “the enemy.”

Before boo hooing that O’Donnell “can’t win” against that Marxist Coon — realize that Pubs outnumbered Donks 2 to 1 in the primary. If enough Donks are disheartened enough to stay home for general, and if the “moderate” Pubs actually show up and select (R) — she can win.

I don’t care if she is Daffy Duck. The Donks elected Franken after all.

You made us – the non-O’Donnell supporters – THE enemy. A greater enemy than the Democrats. All that gleeful talk of purging us.

So how do WE come back from that? Or even should we. I mean, if some of you really do think us supposed RINO-types are unnecessary, it might be a useful experiment to see how well your candidate does without our support or money. Not supporting Coons. Just sitting this one out.

Vyce on September 15, 2010 at 12:42 PM

I think I have tried – except for my responses to jenfidal – to not personally attack the Castle supporters but sheesh – you sound like someone at HA stole your puppy or broke your heart.

You write like no one on the Castle side did anything like wax long about how O’Donnel supporters were going to rip a sure victory from the hands of the GOP and doom the world to a continuation of Obama. How only stupid people who didn’t care about the GOP or ethics would support the lying scheming, cheating wh*re otherwise known as O’Donnell.

Sure let’s all play the “I’m going sit at home to show you that you need me.” You stay home for TP candidates – those people can stay home for for the GOP establishment types who won nomination over TP candidates. And then we all can point fingers at the other side and whine about how “It’s your fault” when we lose both houses.

This is a great storyline. Losing the Senate that is.
It lowers the expectation of the November Election into reasonable levels, and gives those lazy conservative and Tea Partiers a kick in the ass to get out and vote.

Does a winning athlete look at a half time score, see that it is behind by a couple of points, then whine about not being able to rally back and win?
Not if they are a winner!
The simple statement should have been “The people have decided, with this slate we are moving towards our goal of having American’s take control of an out of control administration. Congratulations to all Republicans, as we have shown that the failed policies of the democrats have also been noticed by the voters. The ticket we have is the strongest ticket we have had in any election, and it will show come November 2nd, when the American people finally decide enough is enough…we want out country back.”
Instead they shoot themselves in the foot…a football team doesn’t “collapse” because someone is injured, or is sidelined, a winning team doesn’t point out a team member during the game and complain about them…they go about the business of winning.
The RNC, and others, can’t conceive of the simplest tactics to winning back the House and the Senate…as stated by me, weak RINO’s are so easy to manipulate, a few bad articles, a few attacks, and they run and hide.

Speaking of moaning, it seems to me that some people on the O’Donnell side helped make things nasty. Reihl lying about Castle wanting to impeach Bush, Limbaugh and Hannity misrepresenting Castle’s record, Levin lying about what the guys at Powerline said and then calling them all sorts of names for what was really a very civil difference on their part, O’Donnell’s strange past and statements that made a lot of people question her fitness for office were treated as either acceptable or unimportant. The ends justifies the means, etc. And then after they won slamming the establishment they were pissy that the establishment did not write them a check.

I think there was enough bad behavior to go around here.

But in the end I think O’Donnell will lose because she is not a very good candidate. In truth, neither Castle or O’Donnell are good candidates. I know the feeling is that this is a year when a conservative can win anywhere, that might be true if the conservative was someone other than Christine O’Donnell.

I hope I am wrong. It certainly would not be the first time I was wrong. Happens all the damn time in fact.

If the liberal Establishment Republican wins, the conservatives are supposed to be good soldiers and line up and march.

But if the conservative Tea Party candidate wins, we get told how damaging this is for the party and the only sensible response the liberal Establishment RINO’s can make is to throw their lot behind the Democratic candidate or run as an Independent.

Tactically, it DOESN’T make sense to nominate a purist over a RINO in a state like Delaware.

Steve Z on September 15, 2010 at 12:39 PM

If you re-read my comment, you will see that I was on that side of the debate. Also, I said that we should put aside that argument for now b/c the primary is over. We should now unite to try and win the general. That was the point fo my comment. Thus, I will withhold any other response and simply say I hope the republican wins.

there’s enough bad-blood on both sides. Passions were heated. Names were called. Promises not to vote if the other side won were made on both sides.

So what? That is all heat-of-battle stuff. Let’s remember that ultimately, we are all on the same team, forgive and forget and start working together. We’ll have all these same arguments again during the 2012 primaries. Let’s put it all on hold until then. We have more important things to do now.

I just gave $100 to O’Donnell…I have only gave to political candidates twice: once to Palin after McCain nominated her and now to O’Donnell….Please support her as runs against not only the Democrats but the Republican establishment..Karl Rove can kiss my ass!!! He was part of the inner circle that kept increasing government spending.. He has more chins than a Chinese phonebook..

In other words if “establishment” candidates are willing to give anything more than lip service to the party they wished to represent, then they should be willing to roll up their sleeves and do the hard work of campaigning for someone they disagree with on issues

I will be very surprised if she wins. I will be happy, but very surprised. The GOP needed to run a stronger candidate to gain Biden’s former seat. She is carrying some baggage that I hope she can resolve.